Pazyryk Scythian aDNA results (mtDNA)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pahli

but we know shit about their language

---

What is not real, since we have lot of Greek and Roman sources about this language. Names or words for example! Lot of words and these language remains are clearly Indo-Iranians. So the Altay Scythians who were the direct ancestors of the European Scythian were Indo-Iranian speakers, no doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blogen

What is not real, since we have lot of Greek and Roman sources about this language. Names or words for example! Lot of words and these language remains are clearly Indo-Iranians. So the Altay Scythians who were the direct ancestors of the European Scythian were Indo-Iranian speakers, no doubt.

---

Some of those names sound Hellenized, would be nice to know the original Indo-Iranian name

Greek Byzantine chronicler princess Anna Comnena (11th century AD) describes both Pechenegs and Cumans, indicates close linguistic affinities and calls them Scythians.
There is no IE reference.


Rules and Violence / Regeln und Gewalt: On the Cultural History of Collective violence
edited by Cora Dietl, Titus Knäpper
page 92
https://i.hizliresim.com/rOm80V.jpg


I quote just to show Greek sources were always contradicting each other.

Now if we look from objective viewpoint, Scythians were diverse already by 6th century BC. There were different ethnos.
Scythians became synonym for steppe herding nomads; that means not an ethnic reference but a reference to people having a certain form of lifestyle.

Now but who were first Scyths: Turkic, Indo-European or Uralic? That can be discussed.

Pazyryk samples (2) with N y-dna and strongly Siberian autosomal strengthens the Turkic theory.

Beside let's not forget that Scythian religion and burial rites were Turkic-like. Like burrying horses with dead humans, you don't see that in Iranic paganism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

Greek Byzantine chronicler princess Anna Comnena (11th century AD) describes both Pechenegs and Cumans, indicates close linguistic affinities and calls them Scythians.
There is no IE reference.

---

At this time, the scythian was synonym for the steppic. Even the Hungarians were scythians in some sources.

Scythians were referred to as "Saka" in Iranian sources, the Turks were not, for a good reason.

Scythians had certainly some Iranic elements.
But were they all Iranic? Were they mainly Iranic?
Doubtful.

If it was such, there wouldn't be Iran-Scythian wars like that famous with Massagatea (Cyrhus).
Scythians and Iranians were enemies. To the level 2 related nations couldn't be. Scythian religion was different from the Indo-Iranian Zoroastrianism or Mithraism. That's also a strong point for difference.

Iranians (Medes and Acheamenid later) were given civilization by Semitic Assyrians.
The source of the Iranian Aryan civilization of Medes and Acheamenid is Semitic agriculturalism.
Not steppe pastoralism like were Scythians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

Scythians had certainly some Iranic elements.
But were they all Iranic? Were they mainly Iranic?
Doubtful.

If it was such, there wouldn't be Iran-Scythian wars like that famous with Massagatea (Cyrhus).
Scythians and Iranians were enemies. To the level 2 related nations couldn't be. Scythian religion was different from the Indo-Iranian Zoroastrianism or Mithraism. That's also a strong point for difference.

Iranians (Medes and Acheamenid later) were given civilization by Semitic Assyrians.
The source of the Iranian Aryan civilization of Medes and Acheamenid is Semitic agriculturalism.
Not steppe pastoralism like were Scythians.

---

You cannot use this as an argument, even Turkic tribes fought each other lol, does that mean they weren't Turkic? Ethnicity and linguistics doesn't mean you won't fight each other. The Scythians were still employed as mercenaries by Persians and they were even allied with the Medes to take down the Assyrians. Scythian paganism is strongly connected to Iranic paganism with some differences, they are not the same but similar, obviously since they are nomads they tend to have some cultural differences. It still doesn't make them Turkic like you try to argue for here.

Also neither the Medes or Achaemenids were "Semitic" agriculture empires, are you high or what? xD

The first recorded Iranic proto-level state was Media/Meds.
They started as vassals of Assyrians, later became independent. And later, they were replaced by Acheamenids.

This is why the Iranian civilzation borrowed from Semites.
It's not self-developed civilization.

It was built on Semitic agriculturalism, the legacy of neolithic farmers.

Scythian religion showed similarity with Tengrism more than with Mithraism or Zoroastrianism.

Quote:

---

Although Scythian religious beliefs do not specifically express the values of a nomadic people, such values are manifested distinctly in the forms of Scythian cultic life. For example, according to Herodotus—and this has been confirmed archaeologically—the Scythians had neither temples nor monumental images of their gods, a fact connected, apparently, with the mobility of their way of life.

---

Greeks and Persians had temples and images/icons of their gods. Fire, sun worship etc.
Elements not existing among Scythians.
That makes them closer to Turkic (and also to Uralics).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

The first recorded Iranic proto-level state was Media/Meds.
They started as vassals of Assyrians, later became independent. And later, they were replaced by Acheamenids.

This is why the Iranian civilzation borrowed from Semites.
It's not self-developed civilization.

It was built on Semitic agriculturalism, the legacy of neolithic farmers.

Scythian religion showed similarity with Tengrism more than with Mithraism or Zoroastrianism.



Greeks and Persians had temples and images/icons of their gods. Fire, sun worship etc.
Elements not existing among Scythians.
That makes them closer to Turkic (and also to Uralics).

---

Your opinion doesn't matter for the experts, they are not closer to Turkic or Uralic people but the modern Eastern Iranian peoples of Central Asia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

Scythians had certainly some Iranic elements.
But were they all Iranic? Were they mainly Iranic?

---

Yes, clearly Iranic, without any other ethnic elements. The different substrate is missing from their language residues. Iranic names, iranic words.

For example the Finno-Ugric and Turkic language elements are in the sources of the Hungarian language. Because the Magyars were Finno-Ugric speaker, heavily Turkic influenced peoples at this time.

So this defiency of the non-Iranian elements in the sources about the European Scythians language is not a random thing.

Quote:

---

If it was such, there wouldn't be Iran-Scythian wars like that famous with Massagatea (Cyrhus).
Scythians and Iranians were enemies.

---

And?

Quote:

---

To the level 2 related nations couldn't be. Scythian religion was different from the Indo-Iranian Zoroastrianism or Mithraism. That's also a strong point for difference.

---

So, the Chuvash or the Yakut peoples are not Turks!

Quote:

---

Iranians (Medes and Acheamenid later) were given civilization by Semitic Assyrians.
The source of the Iranian Aryan civilization of Medes and Acheamenid is Semitic agriculturalism.
Not steppe pastoralism like were Scythians.

---

Their common ancestors were those steppic peoples, whom lived in the Andronovo cultural complex. Anywas, the Turks in the modern Turkey are not Turks, because they are not nomads anymore as some Kyrgyz until today!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blogen

Yes, clearly Iranic, without any other ethnic elements.



And?



So, the Chuvash or the Yakut peoples are not Turks!



Their common ancestors were those steppic peoples, whom lived in the Andronovo cultural complex. Anywas, the Turks in the modern Turkey are not Turks, because they are not nomads anymore as some Kyrgyz until today!

---

He is contradicting himself, so by his logic he isn't Turkish xD

There is no sample of the 'Scythian' language btw. There are just hypothesis from 1920s and attempts to reconstruct. That's based on Greek records, Hellenized writings. It's names with -os endings etc like Greek names.
That's not enough of proof.

The reconstruction was attempted by Abaev who took for granted that Scythian language was related with Avestan and old Persian.
And Abaev was... Ossetian himself.

There was Stalinist involvement in that theory. It was the years when Soviet Union was denying that old Rus' was Viking :)

So guys
No. It's not for granted Steppic people as you say, were Iranians. There is no proof for that.

Scythians became Iranic during Stalin era in Russia, the same time Rus' were officially declared non-Varangian LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

There is no sample of the 'Scythian' language btw. There are just hypothesis from 1920s and attempts to reconstruct. That's based on Greek records, Hellenized writings. It's names with -os endings etc like Greek names.
That's not enough of proof.

The reconstruction was attempted by Abaev who took for granted that Scythian language was related with Avestan and old Persian.
And Abaev was... Ossetian himself.

There was Stalinist involvement in that theory. It was the years when Soviet Union was denying that old Rus' was Viking :)

So guys
No. It's not for granted Steppic people as you say, were Iranians. There is no proof for that.

Scythians became Iranic during Stalin era in Russia, like Rus' were officially declared non-Varangian LOL

---

The proof for them being Iranian is much bigger than your flawed Turkic theory, why do you keep trying? xD

It probably hurts your Turanistic ideology of everything being Turkic :(

Ossetian chauvinistic Abaev prepared the 'Iranian Scythian' hypothesis during Stalin era, when same people declared Varangian Rus' weren't Varangian. Not to mention Joseph Stalin was half Ossetian too, from his mom side.

Enough said.

I respect construction attempts but everybody must confess the reality that there is no sample of the Scythian language at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

Ossetian chauvinistic Abaev prepared the 'Iranian Scythian' hypothesis during Stalin era, when same people declared Varangian Rus' weren't Varangian.
Enough said.

I respect construction attempts but everybody must confess the reality that there is no sample of the Scythian language at all.

---

There is but not a lot. although it points towards an East Iranian dialect of Iranian languages. I've seen how Turks tried to hijack that 1000 times and failed, even got destroyed by one of their own countrymen, not all Turks are blinded by dumb ideologies.

There is no sample of the Scythian language.
Toharians were IE (not Iranic) yeah. We know it. They were agriculturalist from Tarim Bassin who left written samples of their language behind them.

For Scythians, we don't know.

Sorry. We can't accept the Abaev-Stalin, Ossetian centric, Iranian Scythians hypothesis for granted.
If we believe in that, we must also accept that Rus' weren't Vikings, because same people pretended that too back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

There is no sample of the Scythian language.
Toharians were IE (not Iranic) yeah. We know it. They were agriculturalist from Tarim Bassin who left written samples of their language behind them.

For Scythians, we don't know.

Sorry. We can't accept the Abaev-Stalin, Ossetian centric, Iranian Scythians theory.
If we believe in that, we must also accept that Rus' weren't Vikings, because same people pretended that too back then.

---

You can't deny a theory just because of Vasily Abaev, then thousands of other linguists are wrong too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blogen

Pamiroid Hungarian girl:
https://i.img.ie/3Zm.jpg

Definitely not white, hovewer, looks swarthy caucasoid for the superficial observer (the white peoples are blonde haired, light eyed and skinned peoples, the dark hair is not white)!

---

Blogen, Hungarians are a white Central European nation. Less mongoloid than me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Blogen, Hungarians are a white Central European nation. Less mongoloid than me.

---

Hair color of the Hungarians (on Fischer–Saller), Mens/Womans:
brown-black (P-Y): 97,7%/96,9%
transitional: (M-O): 1,2%/1,8%
blond: (A-L): 0,8%/1%
red: (I-IV): 0,3%/0,3%

~4% Whites (only the natural light hair + light eye + and light skin!)
~28% swarthy Caucasoids
~67% swarthy not clear Caucasoids (few Mongoloid contribution, mosty only morphologically)
~1% swarthy not clear Mongoloids (few Caucasoid contribution, but visible not clear Mongoloid)

source

Again: white = light hair, eyes and skin.

Brown hair = swarthy, dark eyes = swarthy, dark skin = swarthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blogen

Hair color of the Hungarians (on Fischer–Saller), Mens/Womans:
brown-black (P-Y): 97,7%/96,9%
transitional: (M-O): 1,2%/1,8%
blond: (A-L): 0,8%/1%
red: (I-IV): 0,3%/0,3%

~4% Whites (only the natural light hair + light eye + and light skin!)
~28% swarthy Caucasoids
~67% swarthy not clear Caucasoids (few Mongoloid contribution, mosty only morphologically)
~1% swarthy not clear Mongoloids (few Caucasoid contribution, but visible not clear Mongoloid)

source

Again: white = light hair, eyes and skin.

Brown hair = swarthy, dark eyes = swarthy, dark skin = swarthy.

---

Southern Europeans are not white? Other Europeans with dark hair and brown eyes are not white? White has never meant blonde. The Spanish and Portuguese are rarely blonde, but they called themselves white back in the Colombus era. White = European.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Southern Europeans are not white? Other Europeans with dark hair and brown eyes are not white? White has never meant blonde. The Spanish and Portuguese are rarely blonde, but they called themselves white back in the Colombus era. White = European.

---

Of course not! They are Caucasoids only, but not whites!

https://i.img.ie/3ZN.md.jpg
(click!)

Another turkish OR1D thread... :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

Ossetian chauvinistic Abaev prepared the 'Iranian Scythian' hypothesis during Stalin era, when same people declared Varangian Rus' weren't Varangian. Not to mention Joseph Stalin was half Ossetian too, from his mom side.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkol..._Soviet_Russia

https://i.imgur.com/VTY9g3P.png
https://i.imgur.com/hDsnVeZ.png
https://i.imgur.com/odRjrr6.png
https://i.imgur.com/zc99Rht.png
https://i.imgur.com/xTzzhD2.png
https://i.imgur.com/PdouDSk.png
https://i.imgur.com/fmXRJUW.png
https://i.imgur.com/xwa4c14.png

Just sheer coincidence! ... has absolutely nothing to do with the Scytho-Osseto-Iranian theory :rolleyes:


Ooops! Conspiracy alarm! :eek:

Quote:

---

The USSR Academy of Sciences' publication by V.I. Abaev, which declared Ossetian language to be a Northern branch of the Persian language, came at the crest of the Stalinist campaign against “ancientization” of the Türkic history, decreed in the 1944, at the time when the USSR Academy of Sciences was a subservient department of an autocratic state apparatus.

---

... wait a second.. am I blinded by dumb ideologies now? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pahli

You can't deny a theory just because of Vasily Abaev, then thousands of other linguists are wrong too.

---

One lie always gives birth to another lie. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rethel von Rethelsky

turkish OR1D thread... :bored:

---

another expression for Turan Observation for IE lies thread given by IE supremacists :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan

another expression for Turan Observation for IE lies thread given by IE supremacists :bored:

---

What lies?
did we ever claim, that IEs did never ever marry mongoloidic women? :picard2:

We have 100mln +/- 20mln people in east and south east Asia.
Are they all Turks, becasue they are mongoloidic? :picard2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rethel von Rethelsky

What lies?
did we ever claim, that IEs did never ever marry mongoloidic women? :picard2:

We have 100mln +/- 20mln people in east and south east Asia.
Are they all Turks, becasue they are mongoloidic? :picard2:

---

Keep defending Stalinistic Ossetian propaganda you subhuman.
Scythians were declared Iranic solely to feed Stalin's ego, who was (at least partly) Ossetian.
There is no scientifically any proof or evidence for Scythian Iranicness.

Turkic word Temur or Tumir is taken by Greeks, who have bad habit to add their suffixes -is or -os and then it became Queen Tomyris.
That's how it happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

Keep defending Stalinistic Ossetian propaganda you subhuman.
Scythians were declared Iranic solely to feed Stalin's ego, who was (at least partly) Ossetian.
There is no scientifically any proof or evidence for Scythian Iranicness.

Turkic word Temur or Tumir is taken by Greeks, who have bad habit to add their suffixes -is or -os and then it became Queen Tomyris.
That's how it happened.

---

There is evidence for it, you just don’t want to accept it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

Keep defending Stalinistic Ossetian propaganda you subhuman.
Scythians were declared Iranic solely to feed Stalin's ego, who was (at least partly) Ossetian.
There is no scientifically any proof or evidence for Scythian Iranicness.

Turkic word Temur or Tumir is taken by Greeks, who have bad habit to add their suffixes -is or -os and then it became Queen Tomyris.
That's how it happened.

---

The only subhuman is you, you and youre nation are pathetic wannabe mongoloids with almost no mong dna youre all just a bunch of turkified caucasians

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rethel von Rethelsky

What lies?
did we ever claim, that IEs did never ever marry mongoloidic women? :picard2:

We have 100mln +/- 20mln people in east and south east Asia.
Are they all Turks, becasue they are mongoloidic? :picard2:

---

even the Caucasoid Scythians score 90% Turkic on aDNA results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelmendasi

There is evidence for it, you just don’t want to accept it

---

Only in your wet dreams maybe.

Stalin replaced God for the baboon masses in the USSR once upon a time. Entire cities, factories, car brands were named after Father Stalin.
Soviet historiography gifted Scythians for Thou Father Stalin. Just to appear kind.
The same Stalinist school to this day still pretends Viking Rus' clan wasn't Viking (Germanic) but Balto-Slav!

It's funny how the civilized world kept on that Stalinist history revisionism and falsifications. They still insist all the pastoralist nomads between South Siberia and Crimea were all 'Iranic' ... In fact that's just crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan

Only in your wet dreams maybe.

---

Lol, I don’t care about Scythians being IE or anything being IE in general, what matters to me is facts and the fact is that the actual Scythians were IE although some eastern ones would’ve had some Turkic influences. And there are Saka inscriptions which confirm it as being Iranic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelmendasi

Lol, I don’t care about Scythians being IE or anything being IE in general, what matters to me is facts and the fact is that the actual Scythians were IE although some eastern ones would’ve had some Turkic influences. And there are Saka inscriptions which confirm it as being Iranic

---

Those inscriptions were written by agriculturalist, farming, non-nomad East Iranians of Khoten... with Semitic-origin alphabet...
Already talked about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelmendasi

Lol, I don’t care about Scythians being IE or anything being IE in general, what matters to me is facts and the fact is that the actual Scythians were IE although some eastern ones would’ve had some Turkic influences. And there are Saka inscriptions which confirm it as being Iranic

---

Good point: facts. You don't know them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

Those inscriptions were written by agriculturalist, farming, non-nomad East Iranians of Khoten... with Semitic-origin alphabet...
Already talked about that.

---

They were still Saka and that’s undisputable, also I already established how scripts can’t be linked to language families so calling it “Semitic” is really innacurate and the Turkic alphabet also developed from these so called “Semitic” scripts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan

Good point: facts. You don't know them.

---

Oh yeah I forgot, everything under the sun is Turkic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelmendasi

They were still Saka and that’s undisputable, also I already established how scripts can’t be linked to language families so calling it “Semitic” is really innacurate and the Turkic alphabet also developed from these so called “Semitic” scripts

---

Khotan Empire was East Iranian. Stretching from Transoxiana up until modern Tarim basin which now lies in west China.
They were Buddhist agriculturalists.
They had villages, they were settled, they were farming. They weren't nomads.

They are proto-Tajiks and proto-Sogdians.
That has nothing to do with the nomads of the steppes.

Their script was Aramaic which was a Semitic alphabet. Turkic runes was self-developed (Thomsen said Turks might some cheating on Chinese but runic and letter style making unique).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Böri

Khotan Empire was East Iranian. Stretching from Transoxiana up until modern Tarim basin which now lies in west China.
They were Buddhist agriculturalists.

They are proto-Tajiks and proto-Sogdians.
That has nothing to do with the nomads of the steppes.

---

The inscriptions were proven to be from the Saka though, so the history of Khotan is irrelevant to what I am saying. So for something to be Scythian or Turkic they have to be nomads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelmendasi

So for something to be Scythian or Turkic they have to be nomads?

---

Originally, yes.
Herodotus referred to nomads living all way from Crimea to Siberia with the word Scythian.
Farmers, villager agriculturalists weren't Scythian.